get_mexico_states

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the data granularity (32 states), the aggregation mode (one period), and the ordering (ranked by amount). It omits units and exact return columns, but those are minor for a read-only data fetch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main scope is front-loaded, and the parameter usage follows immediately in natural language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers what the data is, the period options, and the output ordering. It could have explicitly referenced get_mexico_state_timeseries as the alternative for multi-period requests, but this is not a major gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates by explaining how year and quarter combine: year alone gives annual totals, year plus Q1-Q4 gives a single quarter. This adds interaction semantics beyond the schema's type and enum fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: remittances received by each of the 32 Mexican states for a period. It also notes the output is ranked by amount, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_us_states and get_mexico_state_timeseries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete instructions: pass only a year for the annual total, or a year plus quarter for a quarterly total. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the one-period scope is clear enough context for choosing this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.